Cable Cut

Sabotage Alert Involving Surgical Robot at Vienna’s Ordensspital

The accused father pleads “not guilty” to the damage to the surgical robot (stock image).(Bild: Krone-Collage/Anja Richter, stock.adobe.com null, Krone KREATIV)

Following a mysterious series of serious acts of vandalism targeting critical medical equipment, the hospital hired a private investigator. The hospital employee identified by the investigator vehemently denies the allegations, which could have put patients in serious danger.

There was great consternation at a Vienna religious order hospital when alarming incidents of equipment damage began to pile up starting in March. “First, there was tampering with the patient transfer system. Then the camera on the surgical robot was covered with Tipp-Ex, and later the lens was scratched,” the managing director reported as a witness in the gripping trial at the Vienna Landl. “We didn’t know what would happen next.” Nor did we know whether patients were at risk.

Camera Hidden in a Box Placed in the Equipment Room
Eventually, the clinic decided to hire a private investigator. The works council even approved the installation of a hidden camera in the equipment room, where the 700,000-euro surgical robot—which had now brought a 45-year-old family man before the criminal judge—was also stored.

The video shows the surgical assistant pushing one of the devices into the room on April 17. “At 11:17 a.m., you can see him pushing a camera arm down and hitting it against the screen,” the detective explained during the trial. “A short time later, he returns with a knife in his hand and tampered with the device exactly where the cables were later cut. At 11:26 a.m., he comes back in again and covers the spot with tape—apparently so it wouldn’t be noticed right away.”

Knife or ballpoint pen?
The damage wasn’t discovered until days later. The father, who was fired because of the videos, denies the charge of property damage. He claims he came back with a pen in his hand to remove the tape he had found on the robot. He apologizes for his rough handling of the screen: “I adjusted the cover too forcefully. But if we had cameras everywhere, there would be complaints every day—because that’s how the equipment is handled,” he says.

A possible motive for the acts is not discussed during the trial. According to the manager, there was no further damage to stored equipment after the defendant was dismissed. Ms. Rat intends to get to the bottom of the case: the trial is adjourned, in part, to await a video expert opinion.